"L33T" Speak Invades Schools 1546
Masem writes "NYTimes reports on how common chat room/IM shortcuts (such as 'u' for you, 'r' for are, etc) are creeping into the classroom and homework assignments from those teenage kids that spend a significant amount of time in chat programs. This is giving the teachers headaches in trying to grade the assignments, much less understand them because of the techno-generation gap, and to try to prevent further abuse of the language, have begun penalizing students for using the net slang. Students sometimes don't even realize they use the chat room shorthand until it's pointed out to them, because that method of chatting has become second nature to them."
Cop out (Score:3, Interesting)
--trb
In job applications too. (Score:5, Interesting)
Needless to say he told them to rewrite it (after getting a copy).
Re:Kids these days... (Score:5, Interesting)
same story, different decade...
the world was going to go to hell in a handbasket when:
* kids started using calculators instead of slide rules
* kids started typing homework on PCs with spell checkers
* kids started using the 'net as their research source, rather than the library
really, now. it's an interesting sign of the times, but then again, there have always been kids who've used the vernacular in their writing, whether it be poor grammar, slang, or whatnot.
Re:Kids these days... (Score:2, Interesting)
It seems that teachers have lost their ability to read hand-written text, so everything must be on a printed sheet. Strange, I remember when submitting homework on a print-out was considered cheating!
Re:Kids these days... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:It might be second nature... (Score:2, Interesting)
My sons' teacher uses it.... (Score:2, Interesting)
At the end we were all milling around, and their teacher and I started chatting about the boys. She told me she appreciated how polite they were to each other, to her, and to the other students--among other standard teacher complements.
Soon she complement my wife and me on our parenting skills by saying, "You and Chris are doing a good job as parents. So props to you."
Learn to type! No, really! (Score:5, Interesting)
But then it hit me. It isn't laziness, but the lack of any real typing skills. Shorthand is simply a result of trying to be more efficient in transmitting your thoughts. Repetition of anything will develop into normal practice. This is evident in the ubiquitous and pervasive slang we have.
For me, I've been essentially a touch-typist since about the 9th grade and it only takes me a few hundredths of a second more to type YOU instead of U. My girlfriend however is a one-handed hunt and peck type. She also uses every short-hand substitute I've ever seen.
Perhaps it should become a requirement to teach kids to touch-type at an earlier age. This would not only facilitate more productive computer use but should also help foster proper language use by obviating the need for this type of shorthand.
sedawkgrep
It's good to see . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
That teachers are taking a stand and slapping kids down for getting lazy (or stupid!) is a good sign. That most of the comments on
Imagine:
CQ DX DE WB3IZT (Score:5, Interesting)
This may date me a wee bit, but I received my Amateur Radio License back in 1977, when I was 14. I had my novice ticket, so I was limited to CW (Morse Code) over the air. Since CW is a very slow way to communicate, there are many accepted abbreviations and codes. For example: FB OM NO QRM ON UR SIGNAL W9TACO DE WB3IZT Translation : Fine business old man, there is no natural interference on your signal. Your turn, W9TACO (the other person's Ham call), this is WB3IZT (my call).
I would never had dreamed of writing any school work using "code speak" much less expected to get credit for it. "L33T 5P33K" is the same way -- it may be fine on IM or in chatrooms, but it does not belong on school work.
BTW, I know W9TACO is not a valid call sign...if I need to explain it to you, forget it.
Silly Silly... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good for teachers (Score:2, Interesting)
Languages evolve, but that is not their purpose. To some extent, standardization of a language is necessary. Without language standardization, languages split off completely. This isn't necessarily bad if the majority of the population agrees on the changes, but mostly only kids, and a small percentage of them, are using "L33T-sp34k".
Societies don't let children dictate changes to policies. They shouldn't, or we'd be going to war over silly things like candy bars or pathetic insults like "doody-head". We'd have "goo goo, ga ga" become an integral part of our speech. We already have enough trouble with our foolish governments, we don't need more from foolish children.
Language isn't set in stone (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Good for teachers (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree completely if one is writing an academic essay. Such an essay (1) should be comprehensible to people outside your own clique and (2) should remain comprehensible over time. It is very useful to have formal academic speech evolve slowly over time, if the knowledge of past generations is not to become inaccessible, the way Chaucer is and Shakespear is becoming.
On the other hand, if students are penalized because they are using IM speak in instant messages in the course of a project, that would be silly. Likewise, if they were writing fiction that included quoted instant message exchanges or IRC l33t, this would be an appropriate use of dialect and should not be penalized. I don't believe anyone is talking about doing this kind of thing, but this is worth watching, if only to make sure the purists don't get out of hand. Huckleberry Finn was banned on the basis that it debased the English language.
Its very simple, folks. (Score:3, Interesting)
However, in a formal setting - and by formal, I mean the workplace, any education setting (As a teacher, or as a student), or the media (newspaper, magazines, etc.), a standard basic form of the language is necessary so that the average person can understand what is being said or written.
This means leaving out slang that specific to an activity, ethnic group or region. (IE: Netspeak, ebonics, or southern "American"). It also includes spelling, grammer and basic editing for clarity of thought.
-Notes-
*Slashdot is -not- a formal setting, so put that red pen away now and stop correcting my spelling. I don't care enough to hit the spellchecker.
*AVERAGE person. Not "Drooling moron", not "Ignormus who never bothered to pay attention in school.", and not "Non-speaker of the language."
Oh, no. (Score:1, Interesting)
>But
Don't start a sentence with a conjunction.
>if kids are using 'u' as you and 'r' as are
Although the limits may be inferred for simple examples like this, it is best to place comparitive objects in quotes on both sides of the comparison to avoid confusion.
>you
Who is "you" in this case? Do you mean "one"? Or "teachers"?
>should fail the work they've done.
This is a rather esoteric use of the word "fail", implying a passive construct of "cause to fail by direct action." A statement more indicative of the actual flow of action might be "give their work a failing grade," or something similar.
>That is the only way they are going to learn,
This is a complete sentence, and should end with a period (although beginning a sentence with "that" is often considered poor style as well and a hallmark of lazy writing). You begin a run-on sentence at this point. A semi-colon would be an acceptable alternative if you wish to imply a close relationship between the two sentences, which might be appropriate here given your apparent purpose.
>even "better" perhaps
No need for quotes here.
> would be to make them write the word 10 to a 100 times.
"100" is pronounced (and read) as "one hundred" (or sometimes "a hundred" in casual usage). "a 100" reads as "a one hundred" (or "a a hundred"). Omit the initial indefinite article. Also, quantities less than 100 are typically spelled out in words rather than written in numerals, so "ten to 100" would be correct.
A better writing of your post might read something like this:
Remember, kids, George Orwell pointed out the following (in Politics and the English Language, roughly paraphrased):
- Sloppy language leads to sloppy thought.
- Sloppy thinkers are easily manipulated for political purposes.
Don't be sloppy.Thank you and good afternoon.
Re:Kids these days... (Score:2, Interesting)
And yes, AC, cell phones are different because we pay per character. But we weren't talking about cell phones, where we?
No place for text message style abbreviations (Score:4, Interesting)
The other thing that comes hand in hand with the abbreviations are the lack of punctuation, capitals, or grammer. I have had entire e-mails with no capitals or full stops. It takes a long time to work out what is going on. And people claim they couldn't be bothered using the shift key (or whatever). Surely it takes more effort (if you ever learnt to type properly) to remember to not use the shift key?
I have kicked people off a mailing list I administer because they don't make any sense for the reasons above. I don't reply fully to e-mails, I just tell them to send it again so that I can understand it.
I also find that the people who send the mails like that tend to be quite stupid. I got an e-mail along the lines of:
"do u knw abt undergorund rails"
That was it. I asked what he meant by underground rails. The reply was like this:
"undergorund rails in croydon"
I again asked what he meant by underground rails in Croydon, as it is quite ambiguous, and the area very large. Response:
"my dad told me"
At this point, I wrote an e-mail explaining how much easier it would be for him to just type properly and explain what he meant. I think he wanted me to tell him all I knew about underground features in the area, but I couldn't be bothered because of his attitude.
Yes, there is a place for them on phones and SMS as they aren't easy to type on (even with practice, you can't do 80wpm on a numeric pad). There is also a place for acronyms, such as LOL, BTW, BRB etc. because they actually save a lot of time.
I can tell some bastard is going to send me SMS speak mails now just to wind me up...
Language change (Score:5, Interesting)
English doesn't do that. English does have an elite that decides what is in the standard language, but that elite is the collection of writers, editors, and lexicographers who work with the language in the modes of cultural production. So, what Standard English is is decided by a literate elite, but membership in this literate elite is open to anyone based on merit.
But that is not all. Beneath that "high brow" crowd who write literature and scan literature for new usage, there are hundreds of thousands of idiomatic communities speaking and using untold varieties of English. These are not "Standard English," but they are living, breathing, socially functional dialects of English. From time to time, a writer of genius emerges from such a community and brings new usage, idioms, and ways of speaking into that "staid and stuffy" elite. Those portions that speak in new ways, ways that other communities of English find useful, get taken up by the English speaking world at large. Then we find these new usages showing up both in other dialect communities, and in the elite world of "Standard English."
Thus the world of Standard English is reactionary, conservative, and resistant to change, but this is as it should be. This is the force of stability that allows us to read (albeit with difficulty for some) six hundred year old Elizabethan English, like Shakespeare, and should allow English speakers six hundred years from now to read Toni Morrison or Neal Stephenson. At the same time, the vernacular throbs with creativity. Vibrant and electric new words, phrases and idioms crackle into being every day. Most are lost. Some appear only in the margins, in the throw away dialoge of television scripts, or in idiom spoken by characters in novels; mere markers in the history of the language. Some, however, merge into that conservative realm where they join such everyday poetry as "being blue," or "flight of stairs."
I've studied only a few of the world's languages, but so far English is my one true love. Latin and French have their charms for me, but English owns my mind. I treasure both the stodgy elite (which anyone may join; all one must do is add to the great literature of the English language -- no problem!), and the endless, almost frantic, creativity of everyday speakers of English.
Bearing in mind all of the foregoing, schools are not there to institutionalize the random creativity of English. That takes care of itself. They are there to be sure that we all have access to the stodgy collection of Standard English, so we may get our random creativity past the reactionary gatekeepers of the language. All good literature simultaneously reveres the language and subverts it. The most striking example, to me, is "Huckleberry Finn," the first novel with real American voices in it, as opposed to a bunch of Americans speaking more or less just like British speakers of English. Reverence and subversion.
Re:It might be second nature... (Score:2, Interesting)
We don't teach English in schools so that kids can simply communicate -- they can already do that. We teach them so that they can communicate convincingly. With any luck at all these students will one day have to convince a group of other people that their ideas are valid. Most likely these will be people that they don't already know, and that quite possibly will be from a different culture. Perhaps their audience will even be from another part of the world and English will be a second language that they learned in school. Such and audience will lack the cultural reference points necessary to understand slang.
It is common for subcultures to develop their own vocabulary. They do it sometimes for their own ease of communication, and and sometimes so that they can set themselves apart culturally from everyone else. Formal English is constantly changing to allow the more common of those words. I have no doubt that some chatroom and hacker slang will have become standard when we look back in a few years. Until then, however, these words will have limited usefulness when communicating formally.
The art of self-expression and the art of being convincing are both important goals of English classes. Both must be taught, but one should not be taught at the expense of the other.
Mark Twain (Score:2, Interesting)
by Mark Twain
For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped
to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer
be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained
would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2
might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the
same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with
"i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.
Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear
with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12
or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants.
Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi
ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz
ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli.
Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud
hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
It's not so much the chat rooms (Score:2, Interesting)
Where the linguistic nightmare first appeared was in games like Diablo, Ultima Online, and Everquest.
nitwit_01 tells you 'cn u plz tp me 2 wc plz'
you reply 'What's that in English?'
Re:Do they mark down ok as well? (Score:2, Interesting)
This is as bad as Ebonic in classrooms, I didn't work hard in elementry school learning to read, speak, and write so when I get to college I can have an instructor trying to teach me how to butcher English. I am no A student in English, but I at least try. Of course I would expect to get docked points for using Thru or ok. Oddly though I have never used OK outside of dialog. Remember in literature if it's dialog, anything goes. Perhaps this scenario is permissible:
"Jeff are you ok?" yelled Terri. As Terri sifted through the rubble she caught a glimpse of Jeff. It seems that Jeff was okay after all.
I wonder if I could get away with "Ph34r
I wonder if the Internet is some how stunting the growth of the new generation... Hmmm... I'd like to see a reseach paper on that on. HEY YOU! WRITE A PAPER ON IT. I think it would be a great discussion for
Oh well I am a fossil I guess... but I wonder how much the Internet has "Dumbed-Down" peoples writing skills.
Shakespeare (Score:2, Interesting)
Or does this "evolution" everyone's touting include lopping letters of names, now, too?
Re:Kids these days... (Score:3, Interesting)
This even affects professional journalists in training. See the recent story in the Columbia Journalism Review [cjr.org].
Re:Huck Finn (Score:2, Interesting)
er, that isn't l33t speak. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Kids these days... (Score:2, Interesting)
So let me get this straight... (Score:1, Interesting)
Instead of letting their children spend all day chatting with their peers on the internet, parents should make them actually spend time STUDYING. Has studying become a lost art form or are kids today really that lazy?
There's a place and time for slang. Hell, I'm guilty of using it myself in informal settings. But there's a difference in chatting with your friends and trying to get your point across in a supposedly professional paper for school or work. If kids are too stupid to realize this, then they deserve the low scores they receive.
Re:Kids these days... (Score:4, Interesting)
Regarding multiplication: Calculators break, or the batteries die. And I'm the only person I know who carries a calculator with them at all times.
The answer to a person being unable to function without their tools is not to make the tool more pervasive. This goes for calculators and spellcheckers (which don't correct the missuse of 'to' and 'too' -- do you check for this yourself?).
On "IRC speak": I have no problem at all with them using shorthand in appropriate situations. You're taking notes in class? You're talking on AIM or IRC? Fine. Use shorthand. In fact, I recommend that they learn -real- shorthand (you don't think these idiots invented it, do you?), as it provides more comprehensive rules for abbreviation, rather than a small number of replacement words.
The problem is that they were unable to recognize that they were using this shorthand, or when it was inapporpriate to do so. Reports in English class (which shorthand IS NOT) should be in English. Actually, in school the secondary objective of any report (whether in English class or not) is to teach effective writing, and thus should also be in English.
It's like people who use a lot of slang. All of the heavy-slang users I've ever hung out with know it's slang they're using, and can stop when the situation warrants.
Re:Kids these days... (Score:2, Interesting)
> doesn't hire full time teachers unless they hold
> a master's degree.
Clue-train.... A master's degree, believe it or not, doesn't guarantee intelligence.
Case in point: I am taking a break from UH and taking a class at the community college. A certain teacher there claimed the following:
A) Turkey is on the european mainland next to Italy (between Greece and Turkey). She seems unaware of the existence of Yugoslavia et al.
B) If you take the symbols for greek letters (such as Delta Omega Gamma), and take the first letter for each, you can translate to english and back to greek without actually knowing Greek - but only the alphabet. Pressed on the issue by the class, she assured us that if you wrote the symbols Delta Omega Gamma, this would indeed be the Greek word for DOG.
This lady has - get this - a PhD in Political Science.
Higher and higher levels of education aren't the answer. It is, as this discussion has as its base, making sure that any level of education has some legitimacy to it. There are too many public schools graduating kids that think calculators are a good substitute for knowing how to multiply and divide (indeed, my ex, an engineering major, can't even do long division).
Too many neglect to teach students that an idea is only as good as your ability to communicate it to others. This continues through college and beyond as well.
Different fields have different problems. Usually in teaching this does not have to do, however, with a teacher not knowing his or her own specialty, rather with them having an incomplete grasp of how to convey this information to youngsters. The teacher that used the "touch" method for example, surely knew how to multiply herself. However, it was easier for her to get results from her kids if she taught them this method -- and it did them well on standardized tests that year... Who cares if they can't do any better two or three years down the road?
Likewise the teacher that accepts "1337" language and net lingo in a formal assignment is desperate to get his or her kids to actually do *something*, neglecting to realize that by giving them this recognition which allows them to produce "assignments" without having to learn anything, they are dooming them to an illiterate future where they do not have the skills necessary to comminicate effectively on paper.
A Master's Degree will only ensure that the teacher knows his or subject better, but is off the mark. The real test is in whether or not the teacher is able to TEACH. A good teacher would be able to teach students addition without even knowing algebra herself. But someone who knows differential calculus, trigonometry, etc, but cannot teach, will do nothing but ineffectively spout out dribble. In which case he or she will allow students to use any shortcuts *they* are able to find on their own to figure it out - which is how many high school math teachers get by.
What's the solution? Require of teachers not higher and higher degrees, but a basic education in HOW TO TEACH. This is part of elementary education, but obviously the classes in this are failing to convey effective methods. Secondary education requires very few classes in teaching, and these too seemingly are failing to convey an ability to teach.
Perhaps - just perhaps - we should reward those teachers who manage to grasp the concept of how to effectively teach skills - with better paychecks and incentives to remain in teaching, rather than depending on a constant influx of mediocre teachers to replace those who have moved on due to horrible conditions.
Then the discussion of "1337" speak, calculators, etc, in classrooms would be a moot point, since kids would actually be learning something useful and wouldn't need such things.
Re:Good for teachers (Score:2, Interesting)
0ur d4d, wh0 0wnz h34v3n, j00 r0ck! 137 411 0ur B453 50m3d4y b3 Bl0ng 2 U! mA j00 0wn 34rth 1ik3 j00 0wn20r5 h34v3n. give us thi5 dA our w4r3z, mp3z, + pr0n thru a phat pip3. + cut u5 50m3 514ck wh3n w3 act lik3 n00B l4m3rz, just a5 w3 t34ch n00bz when thA act l4m3 0n us. p13453 d0n't giv3 u5 root on s0m3 p00r d00d'z b0x3n wh3n w3'r3 t00 pi553d 0ff t0 grep r1ght + wr0ng, + if j00 c4n k33p th3 f3i 0ff 0ur b4cks, w3'd b3 k00l. f0r j00 0wn r00t 0n 4ll 0ur b0x3n 4ever + 3v3r, 4m3n.
whew!
-SablKnight
Re:Kids these days... (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm the person who started the original reply post "Bush War Monger". I'd like to state I'm British, and I don't believe in what the USA plans to do because of its hypocrisy (the majority of the British populas, around 68%, contrary to popular American belief, don't believe in war with Iraq). It states that Iraq is building weapons of mass destruction (Israel has these and is an agressor), it breaks UN accords (Israel still holds Palestinian land, against UN agreements to pull out), and it obviously should not be able to defend itself (so why does America/UK etc have these weapons?). Bush continues to fund and supply weapons to Israel. I am not against the USA, it is a beautiful country I have visited time and again but when you can't see you have an idiot as a President its time to take your head out of the wood work. The President will only cause more trouble for your country. Have you not learnt from watching what Israel does, can you not see what Israel is causing the Palestinians to do?